The violence in the work of some of the classic authors like
Thompson or Dan Marlowe never seems gratuitous or over the
top in the manner of so many contemporary noir writers who
think an exploding head and a blood-splattered windshield is
the modern-day equivalent of a cartoon character slipping on
a banana peel. One culprit behind this trend, in my opinion,
is none other than Quentin Tarantino. Just as you say that
many of the new novels are books based on other books instead
of life, Tarantino's films mymic his predecessors' work
behind a faux ironic smirk instead of expressing a genuine
outlook on life.
His influence on the rest of popular culture (from the ever
more gross films of people like Eli Roth to many of the
recent noir novels) is likewise tangible. The characters in
these neo-noirs usually conform to the stereotype we have of
what a hitman or a tough guy is supposed to be like
-ruthless, insensitive, sadistic - even if they're nothing
but walking punchlines. It is clear to me that many of these
writers have never experienced anything even remotely close
to violence in their lives. This is why their fake and
sadistic depiction of it in their works is more like a
childish enjoyment of the forbidden rather than any
meaningful statement. I believe this reliance on the gross
also operates as a distraction from their obvious lack of
storytelling skills. This is particularly evident in the new
crop of novels where it is mandatory to include an action
scene on every single page of their three-page
chapters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Jul 2007 EDT